Honestly, when you look at cannibalism outside of the actual act of murder, the real ethical gray area isn't the survival instinct—it's how you prepare and season the meat. Take the example our moderator mentioned above: there’s a massive difference between a starving soldier stripping a thigh from a fallen comrade just to stay alive, versus someone taking the time to simmer it into a gourmet soup. Even though they're both consuming someone who's already passed, wouldn't people find it much harder to forgive someone who actually seemed to enjoy the meal?
mistybison said:A conversation recently broke out on "religion" regarding whether a religious person can truly be considered wise. After a bit of back-and-forth, we reached the consensus that everyone defines wisdom differently, which naturally dictates their view on whether faith and wisdom can coexist.
Since philosophy is fundamentally defined as the love of wisdom, this seems like the perfect venue to pin down what that term actually signifies. 🙂
Gerald Jackson48 said:Look, we can call things whatever we want and compare them to anything we feel like. Even Capra does it. It’s really not up for debate.
That's just not true. I've got his Web of Life right here, plus there are plenty of different sources out there today if you actually bother to look for information on someone or something. To be honest, I don't even have a set-in-stone opinion on Capra, so he isn't exactly going to influence my view with some perfectly polished writing. My main point is that his ideas and ways of thinking often step way outside the lines of typical scientific thought. At the end of the day, it's not some rigid rulebook he's pushing; it's just a description of how things are, and Capra himself backs it up.
I wasn't even sure if he was a true mystic or just someone who got way too carried away with the whole spiritual thing. He definitely had a habit of drifting far beyond the bounds of actual science with his theories. It was wild to watch.
Awesome. I really think Capra has some killer ideas and great insights to share.
I'm a bit lost here. When you say 'dead organisms have DNA,' are you talking about inanimate objects or actual biological remains?
Can someone just disable my ability to file an appeal? It feels pretty pointless at this point, since it’s clear you guys value a troll's outburst more than an actual formal complaint. I might as well go waste my time doing something else instead of typing out appeals that nobody reads. Thanks.
Hey Nica, could you take a look at this thread where I broke down what happened? I'd love to get your take on whether you think my ban was actually justified. Thanks.
So, this is the post for which BlackRock slapped me with a massive 700-point penalty.
The reasoning provided was "frequent hate speech and justifying murder." Neither of those things is remotely true. Just because my interpretation of the events differs from his doesn't give him the right to label my views as hate speech and hand out a ban. This marks the third time I've faced draconian penalties for violations that simply don't exist.
Everything I stated in my post is factual. George Floyd was under the influence. He was driving in that state. The police were called regarding counterfeit bills. He resisted arrest for ten minutes. The first autopsy performed by the official pathologist found no evidence of asphyxiation, whereas the second autopsy conducted by a private pathologist did find evidence of suffocation. These are the official facts. I cited all of this to suggest that this wasn't necessarily a systemic issue. In what way, exactly, am I justifying a murder?
The very same George Floyd—whose case triggered such an intense emotional reaction in BlackRock that he handed me this ban—had broken into a woman's home while she was alone with her young child, robbing her at gunpoint. In my view, that crime sits in a similar category to sexual assault when you consider the trauma inflicted on the victim. None of this changes the legality of the incident or the guilt of the officer, but it does matter when it comes to one's personal sense of sympathy and compassion.
Look, I’m not approaching this debate by viewing the incident as a meeting between an innocent, upright citizen and brutal police officers; I see it as a confrontation involving a convicted armed robber, a dealer, a drug user, a reckless driver, and a fraudster facing an indifferent cop. THAT IS MY PERSPECTIVE AND MY RATIONALIZATION. IT IS NEITHER HATE SPEECH NOR A JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY MURDER.
Can another moderator—Nica, Saba, anyone else—please tell me if this ban is actually justified? If it isn't, I ask that it be rescinded. Thanks.
ruggedraven36 said:They wouldn't agree with me; they’d be agreeing with you. When I asked you to explain the difference between life itself and the *meaning* of life, you gave me this:
Claiming "survival is the meaning of life" is a total non-starter—it's a circular argument. Survival *is* life. It's like saying "breathing is the meaning of breathing." So, based on what you wrote, there are only two options left: either there's zero distinction between life and its purpose, or the purpose of life is simply sacrificing it.
Not quite. Life is the state of being; survival is the act of sustaining that existence.
Since Cuca seems to think nobody needs to be held accountable for anything, maybe another mod can weigh in here: did I actually earn these 500 points, or what?
Every single entry that gets filed away might be inappropriate, but obviously, they don't all earn 500 points. Why on earth would you think what I said is worth 500 points?
So, a user posted an article reporting the death of a die-hard Trump supporter, raising the question of whether he was targeted because of his political views—as if Trump supporters are some kind of endangered species in America... My response was essentially along the lines of: "One less idiot, what's the issue?"
While my reply wasn't exactly classy or morally upright, it accurately reflects how I feel about people holding that specific set of beliefs. Look, I despise those who back Trump, and I have plenty of good reasons for it. I’m not calling for violence; I just don't have any respect for them.
Hate speech is defined as "any call for national, racial, or religious hatred that incites discrimination, hostility, or violence," and what I said doesn't meet those criteria.
I expected maybe a few points docked or a warning, but a 500-point penalty? I didn't earn that.
About six months ago, I picked up a failing grade in my psychology course—one I honestly don't think I earned. But hey, it’s been half a year now. I’ve put in the work and dealt with my fair share of headaches since then, so I was wondering if someone could finally clear that mark from my record? Thanks.
Anthony Carter5 said:I might give that a go. I’ve always been pretty athletic, but lately, I’ve definitely packed on some weight. I'm probably sitting around 260 lbs right now, though I’m honestly too terrified to even step on a scale. Plus, I spent three years dealing with intercostal neuralgia, which didn't exactly help things.
Weight can definitely play a role in that feeling of tension, both directly and indirectly. You don't have to jump straight into running, either; starting with some walking is perfectly fine.
Jeffrey Chase442 said:How can you say it isn't 😁...look, if someone like Mara gets on my nerves, I have zero interest in even acknowledging their existence...but then she’ll turn around and ask me some random question, and suddenly I’m oversharing and rambling like a total idiot 🤦...by acting like that, I'm basically handing her a VIP pass to come crawling back, which is the last thing I actually want to happen. It's a complete paradox, honestly, people just 🤣
The example you gave suggests you might just be craving some social interaction. Even if Mara is unappealing to you, that underlying need to talk seems to override your dislike of her. A physical paradox doesn't really exist in the real world.